Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assessing-Introversion-And-Extroversion 👈

1. St. Cloud State University
theRepository at St. Cloud State
Culminating Projects in English Department of English
12-2017
Assessing Introversion and Extroversion in a
Second Language Setting
Caitlin Skellett
St. Cloud State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Culminating Projects in English by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact
rswexelbaum@stcloudstate.edu.
Recommended Citation
Skellett, Caitlin, "Assessing Introversion and Extroversion in a Second Language Setting" (2017). Culminating Projects in English. 110.
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/110

2. Assessing Introversion and Extroversion in a Second Language Setting
by
Caitlin E. Skellett
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
St. Cloud State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts in
Teaching English as a Second Language
December, 2017
Thesis Committee:
Choonkyong Kim, Chairperson
John Madden
Masha Mikolchak

3. 2
Abstract
This study aims to create a useful tool for assessing personality in the language classroom
by testing a newly created personality test and comparing it’s results to a previously used and
well-known tool. Participants in this study were 51 international students enrolled in the English
for Academic Purposes program at a Midwestern university. They came from various L2
backgrounds including Chinese and Nepali. The new personality testing too was created by
simplifying the existing tool’s language and adding context to each question on the test, so that
students are tapping into their personality as a language learner instead of their general
personality traits. Students took this newly created test, named the Extroversion/Introversion in
Language Learning Test (EILLT), and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) along with an
oral language assessment. The researcher compared the results of the three tests looking for
correlations. The study showed that the new tool was more effective at assessing personality in
the language classroom because it provided statistically significant results when correlating with
the language measure while the MBTI did not provide statistically significant results. It also
confirmed that participants scored more introverted when they thought of their personality in the
language classroom, than when they thought of their overall personality. The researcher
recommends the EILLT be utilized by language teachers in the future who want to better
understand their students’ personalities so as to best support their students in the classroom.

4. 3
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
I: Introduction ........................................................................................................................7
II: Literature Review..............................................................................................................9
Research on Introversion/Extroversion’s effect on L2 Ability...............................9
Defining Constructs in SLA...........................................................................9
Positive Correlation Found ............................................................................12
No Correlation Found ....................................................................................14
Problems with Previous Methodology and Tools...................................................18
Research Variables.........................................................................................18
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Other Personality Tests ...........................20
Research Questions.................................................................................................22
III: Methods ...........................................................................................................................23
Participants .............................................................................................................23
Materials .................................................................................................................23
Procedure ................................................................................................................29
Analysis...................................................................................................................30
IV: Results .............................................................................................................................31
V: Discussion.........................................................................................................................37
Pedagogical Implications........................................................................................40
Future Research ......................................................................................................41
Limitations..............................................................................................................43
References..............................................................................................................................45

5. 4
Appendices
A. Changes made from MBTI Test to EILLT .......................................................................49
B. Informed Consent Document...........................................................................................50

6. 5
List of Table
Table Page
1.1 Summary of Studies Reviewed.....................................................................................16

7. 6
List of Figures
Figure Page
3.1 MBTI-Style Test ...........................................................................................................24
3.2 Extroversion/Introversion in Language Learning Test (EILLT) ..................................27
4.1 Correlation between Total Speaking Test Score and Personality.................................32
4.2 Extroverts and Introverts Score on Speaking Test........................................................33
4.3 MBTI Versus EILLT Personality Scores......................................................................35
4.4 Week 1 Versus Week 2 Personality Scores ..................................................................36

8. 7
I: INTRODUCTION
Numerous educators and researchers have created formal or informal hypotheses on the
nature of the relationship between personality and language ability but rarely has an agreed upon
consensus come from these hypotheses. Even someone outside of the academic field of TESOL
might have an opinion when it comes to the question of personality’s relation to language
learning. Looking specifically at the personality traits of introversion and extroversion compared
with oral language ability, numerous studies have been done (Chen, Jiang, & Mu, 2015; Dewaele
& Furnham, 2002; Lestari, Sada, & Suhartono, 2015; Moyer, 2015; Sharp, 2008; Suliman, 2015;
Van Daele, 2005) to examine any relationship between personality and language. Of these
studies, the vast majority disagree in their results which begs the question of why this variation
has occurred.
Examining the previous studies’ methodology, one of the major areas in question is the
use of the personality test. Sharp (2008) and Chen, Jiang, and Mu (2015) cite the personality
tests’ ineffectiveness in their limitations section. Similarly, psychological research findings
(Noftle & Fleeson, 2015; Pittenger, 2005; Pomerance & Converse, 2013) promote the idea that
personality test designs may be faulty. Using these tests in the previous research’s methodology
could be the reason why results have varied and questions have gone unanswered.
Current research shows that the very nature of constructs, such as personality, may need
to be defined differently (Dornyei, Henry, & Muir, 2016). With the changing views on
constructs, new tools to asses these constructs must be created. The goal of this study is to create
a new tool which takes into account current research trends dealing with the nature of
personality, as well as research on the effectiveness of personality tests to effectively assess
language learners’ personalities within the context of their language learning. Based on the

9. 8
findings of this study, the newly created tool may provide researchers with an option to use to
accurately assess language learning personality in their studies.

10. 9
II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on Introversion/Extroversion’s effect on L2 Ability
Defining Constructs in SLA
The idea of personality has been defined in many different ways over time. Without a
single way of looking at personality, it is impossible to create the basis for a study on something
that does not have a set standard. This literature review will start by examining the many ways
personality, introversion, and extroversion have been defined in past research in the field of SLA
as well as other fields, and then define these constructs as they will be used in this study for the
purpose of clarity.
Hu and Reiter (2009) outline five different ways of defining personality: psychoanalytic,
learning/behaviorist, dispositional, cognitive, and biological. Depending on which of these
definitions a researcher adheres to, they may see personality’s boundaries and level of variability
in very different ways. According to Hu and Reiter (2009), most studies have dealt with the
dispositional view of personality, which believes that people are consistent in their thoughts and
actions. But if a different study took a psychoanalytic view of personality, for example, they
would believe that personality is a dynamic set of processes always in motion.
The issue of defining personality brings up an important question: is personality variable?
If so, how can a changing entity be measured? This question is something all researchers in this
field should consider. Chen et al. (2015) declared that students’ personalities may be different in
and out of school, thus considering personality as a variable trait. Dewaele (2005) believed
“language learners or users are constantly bombarded by events that continuously shape and
reshape their personalities” and thus change their language learning abilities (p. 371).

11. 10
Many SLA theorists are skeptical of psychology (Dewaele, 2005), but when examining
personality, a largely psychological construct, researchers must consider the current research
being done in the psychological field. One interesting psychological perspective currently
undergoing research is that of intraindividual variability. In the field of psychology, personality
was traditionally viewed as stable, but Noftle and Fleeson (2015) argue that frequent and short-
term variability happens. Noftle and Fleeson (2015) argue that considering intraindividual
variability is important because “it is clear that a full description of what people are like will
include that a person is not always the same and varies at least a little bit from moment to
moment” (p.177). This view of personality posits that each person’s behavior includes an
average and a standard deviation for the way in which it is possible they might behave. Finally,
those who believe in intraindividual variability believe that personality development is a lifelong
process – even studying adults would not improve the accuracy of a static personality trait test.
While intraindividual variability may be a new term, the idea of having multiple aspects
to your personality has been generally accepted, even since the beginning of Isabel Briggs
Myers’ venture into the world of personality theorizing in her book Gifts Differing. Meyers
states that every person has a dominant trait, but the auxiliary trait will also be a constant part of
them. Her idea is that an individual will strengthen one process over another due to their
inherent and natural choice based on “the way people prefer to use their minds” (Myers, I.B.,
1980, p. 1). It is important for SLA researchers to realize that certain individuals may not be
able to be defined as an introvert or extrovert if they do not have a strong preference or have not
strengthened one trait over another.
Not only is defining personality a concern, researchers also must define what exactly
extroversion and introversion mean in the confines of their study. Hu and Reiter (2009) noticed

12. 11
that different tests define extroversion in different ways and get different results showing “how
important it is for researchers to understand the exact meaning of the same label in personality
research” (p.106). Meyers (1980) defines introverts as being more concerned with the “inner
world of concepts and ideas… [versus extroverts who are] more involved with the outer world of
people and things” (p. 7). In the working or schooling world, introverts show concentration on a
task and they must have the right idea about something before sharing it with others. Extroverts,
on the other hand must share their work widely with others (Myers, 1980). Defining these traits
prior to conducting a study will allow researchers to pinpoint the exact personality type they are
studying.
This seems to be a time of change for many constructs in the language teaching world.
Not only, as this study proposes, should the idea of personality in a language classroom be
reviewed, much work has been done recently on the changing construct of motivation in the
language classroom (Dornyei, Henry, & Muir, 2016). Dornyei et al. (2016) remind us that the
construct of motivation has gone through many changes, one of the most recent being a shift to
“temporal variation of motivation (i.e., how motivation changes over time)” (p. 22). Few
instances of similar research have been done related to personality, but it seems that the two
constructs run parallel to each other in that both shift and vary based on the situation in which the
learner finds himself.
For the purpose of this study, the researcher will define constructs with the most current
and widely accepted definitions held today. This study will look at personality through a
psychoanalytic lens as a variable trait that can change overtime or within different situations.
The American Psychological Association (2017) defines personality as “individual differences in

13. 12
characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving.” The personality test created will try to
tap into this view of personality.
Introversion will be defined following Myers’ (1980) example, as people who are
concerned with their own inter-workings and are able to re-charge by being alone. Extroversion
will be defined as people who are more interested in the outer world and who gain energy by
spending time with others.
Positive Correlation Found
There have been many studies that confidently have reported a relationship between
extroversion and second language speaking ability. The basic assumption in SLA theory has
been that extroverts are better language learners than introverts. Gass, Behney, and Plonsky
(2013) pointed out, “the gregariousness associated with extroverts would suggest that they would
engage in more talking and social activity in an L2 and thus learn the language better” (p. 465-
466). Some individually conducted studies that agree with these terms are now discussed.
In a study of 33 Indonesian University English Education students, Lestari, Sada, and
Suhartono (2015) found a moderate relationship between introversion and extroversion and
speaking test scores. Extroverts did slightly better than introverts in this study. This study used
the Mark Parkinson Personality Questionnaire which emphasized an indirect communication
technique of acquiring data. It was modified by a psychologist to be more appropriate for the
students. The researcher also observed the students’ personalities in their language class and
combined the results from the observation and from the questionnaire to determine the student’s
personalities.
Moyer (2014) looked at the success of certain individuals in achieving perfect native-like
accents while others spend their whole lives unable to speak with such pronunciation. Moyer

14. 13
(2014) discussed many possible causes for this, one of which being personality and “openness to
developing new experiences,” as well as “one’s perceived ease of establishing contact with
native speakers” (p.432). These two qualities (i.e. openness and perceived ease of contacting
native speakers) that make native-like pronunciation more easily achieved are also traits that can
be linked with the openness of extroverts and their tendency to seek out external stimuli.
In Dewaele and Furnham’s study (1999), they stated that extroverts had a higher fluency
rate than introverts, but they did not outperform introverts when it came to accuracy. The study
found the same results in formal and informal situations, with the fluency of extroverts over
introverts improving in higher complexity situations.
Scientifically, Dewaele (2005) believes extroverts have the advantage over introverts in
their short-term memory processing abilities. He speculated that “levels of dopamine and
norepinephrine, which are vital in attentional and working memory processes, might exceed
optimal levels more easily in introvert than in [extrovert] L2 users. Such excess could cause an
overload and a breakdown in fluency” (p. 373). There has not been enough research done on this
subject to prove Dewaele’s beliefs, but studying the brain to determine personality is an idea
with promise (this will be discussed in more detail later in this study when examining
implications for future research).
Suliman’s (2015) study of 20 male and female university English majors, in which he
administered a questionnaire asking about student’s personality and their personalities’ perceived
influence on their language acquisition. He then observed students’ behavior in a classroom and
found distinct differences between extroverts and introverts in the language classroom. He found
that extroverts were more likely to succeed because even when they were unsure of the answer
they “were likely to try out a large amount and variety of different word types with high speech

15. 14
rates and legible pronunciation” (p. 112). As Rod Ellis’ (2014) principle states, output is vital
for second language learning, so in this sense, extroverts have an advantage over introverts who
Suliman (2015) saw “avoid interaction in English classes because they might be afraid of
embarrassing themselves when speaking incorrectly or being unable to speak” (p. 112).
The preceding research has argued for a positive correlation between extroversion and
some aspect of second language speaking, which is the view supported by the majority of
scholars in the field of SLA. Next, we move to a discussion of those studies that found the
opposite.
No Correlation Found
While the standard in the SLA field has been to believe that extroverts make better
second language speakers, many studies have gone against that theory and have found no
correlation between extroversion and second language speaking ability. In examining past
studies, Tarone (2009) asserted that most researchers “have found that these particular
personality traits [extroversion and introversion] do not seem to affect success; both extroverts
and introverts can succeed in attaining their language learning goals” (p. 4). The following
section reviews studies that enforce these beliefs.
One study, done by Chen, Jiang, and Mu (2015) found that neither extroversion nor
introversion were key factors in English language performance. This study used a self-reporting
questionnaire which was an adapted version of the Eysenck Introversion-extroversion Scale
translated into Chinese. as well as the teacher’s and fellow students’ observations to get a more
complete view of personality. They then conducted a speaking test where the students were
assessed by an examiner on accuracy, range of vocabulary, grammar, size of contributions, and

16. 15
discourse management. Taking a broad look at speaking skills, none of them seemed to be
impacted by extroversion or introversion factors.
Another study done by Sharp (2008) found no statistically significant results when
examining 100 Hong Kong university undergraduates. Although this test purported to examine
overall language ability, it only tested reading and grammar, believing that these were
appropriate measures to predict language proficiency. (See the research variables section below
for a discussion on this.) The study gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality
inventory (an extremely popular and well-known test of personality), a strategy test, and a
language proficiency test to compare the results.
Van Daele (2005) conducted a fairly well-scoped and innovative study, in which two
second languages were looked at, rather than one, to determine if extroversion’s effects were
stable across different target languages. Linguistic accuracy and complexity of production were
examined in a picture story retell task. This study was also longitudinal in that it collected data
at three six-month intervals to determine if the effects were stable over time. The results were
very inconclusive. Van Deale found that only the measure for lexical complexity correlated
positively with extroversion. The longitudinal data showed that the effects of personality were
not consistent over the three testing periods and that the effects decrease over time. Overall,
extroversion had no effect on accuracy or fluency.
These studies’ findings were interesting because the results did not show any relationship
between introversion/extroversion and speaking ability. Researchers must decide if something
has been faulty with their methodology, or if there really is no correlation. One way to do this
would be to replicate the research, although replicating the same flawed studies would not be a
good use of resources. See Table 1.1 for a summary of all studies reviewed here. The next

17. 16
section examines possible methodology pitfalls in hopes of recognizing the problems of past
studies and avoiding them in the future.
Table 1.1
Summary of Studies Reviewed
Study Personality
Test Used
Language
Construct
Examined
Personality
Definition
Introvert/Extrovert
Definition
Extroversion
Correlates
with Higher
Ability? Y/N
Lestari,
Sada, and
Suhartono
(2015)
Mark
Parkinson
Personality
Questionnaire
Overall
speaking
performance
A dynamic
and organized
set of
characteristics
possessed by
a person that
uniquely
influences his
or her
cognitions,
motivations,
and behaviors
in specific
situation
N/A Yes
Dewaele
&
Furnham
(1999)
Eysenck
Personality
Questionnaire
Speaking
fluency and
accuracy
Biological Higher/Lower
levels of arousal in
the nervous system
Fluency-Yes
Accuracy-
No
Suliman
(2015)
Questionnaire
on personality
and its
perceived
effect on
language
learning
Speaking,
listening
comprehension
and reading
comprehension
Personality
Factors: It is a
feature or a
quality that is
assumed to
distinguish
one student
from another.
Introvert: It means
a person who is
more concerned
with his own
emotions and
feelings than in
issues outside
himself. In other
words, it means
being too shy to
join social
activities.
Yes

18. 17
Extrovert: It means
a person who is
more concerned
with what is
happening around
him than in his
own emotions and
thoughts
Chen,
Jiang &
Mu (2015)
Eysenck
Personality
Questionnaire
(adapted
version)
Oral
communicative
ability
N/A Introvert: reserved,
shy, self-restrained
Extrovert: social,
outgoing, talkative
No
Sharp
(2008)
MBTI Reading and
grammar
Everyone is
different and
individuals
are
characterized
by a unique
and basically
unchanging
pattern of
traits,
dispositions
or
temperaments
N/A No
Van Daele
(2005)
Eysenck
Personality
Questionnaire
Speaking
accuracy and
complexity
Biological Higher/Lower
levels of arousal in
the nervous system
No

19. 18
Problems with Previous Methodology and Tools
It is impossible to compare the studies detailed above on a one to one basis. Each study
is variable in how it defines and measures personality, and how it measures language ability. The
studies also vary in regards to situational aspects such as culture, location, and demographics of
the subjects, and language skills assessed. These pitfalls can explain much of the variation in
results.
Research Variables
Personality Measurement Tools. The first and largest variable between tests is that each
one not only defines personality, introversion, and extroversion in different ways, but each one
also uses different measurements of personality. Table 1 shows the various personality measures
that were used for each test which led to many different results. The personality measures used
in the articles reviewed here include: Mark Parkinson Personality Questionnaire, Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and an unnamed questionnaire. It is
evident that having such a wide variation among tools can easily skew the results.
Language Measurement Tools. There have also been different speaking factors such as
fluency, accuracy, pronunciation, and speed which may need to be separated out and studied
individually instead of lumped together when looking at oral language ability.
The way in which researchers conduct tests also needs to be considered. In Sharp’s
(2008) study, speaking abilities were not tested, although overall language proficiency was
assumed to be known. Such studies fall short of their goals because of the way in which they are
testing the subjects. This study had a large sample size (100), making it hard to administer a
speaking test to each individual, but this logistical problem should not stop the researchers from
taking all aspects of language into consideration. When studies do conduct speaking tests, it is

20. 19
also important to have multiple testers present in each testing situation so that the results of the
study do not hinge on one interlocutor’s opinion.
Situational Variables. Each study looked at has many unaccounted for situational
variables that may be skewing the study in some way. One large consideration is the country in
which the study takes place. In a country such as China, where Chen et al. (2015) conducted a
study, “Chinese students are encouraged to remain quiet and listen to the teachers attentively,
which is also thought to be respectful to the teachers” (p. 586). This cultural fact could mean
that extroverts may not be able to benefit from their outspoken personality types in a Chinese
classroom. Hu and Reiterer (2009) pointed out “if the ‘typical personality’ of one culture is more
introverted than that of a second culture, [this might affect] the self-concept and persona of
individuals speaking the two languages and participating in the two cultures” (p. 97-98).
Someone from a more introverted culture will have to decide how to alter their personality to fit
into the target language’s culture. Similar to cultural differences, the different languages being
used may respond to extroversion and introversion differently, as well. Researchers must
consider learners’ L1 and L2, taking into account language distance, and the difficulty of the
language being learned, both factors that could affect how comfortable and extroverted learners
feel in their L2 environment.
Wakamoto (2009) believes that gender has a lot to do with extroversion and introversion
in that women must find a means of self-expression indirectly within the female role, as
extroversion is not a trait that is expected of women. Thus, male and female test subjects should
always be accounted for separately when examining extroversion and introversion data, which
was not done in any of the studies that were considered for this literature review.

21. 20
Overall, Dewaele (2005) put it best when he said “Researchers need to be aware that the
patterns they are observing may be influenced by independent variables lurking in the
background” (p. 370). Once researchers are aware of these lurking variables, they can minimize
their impact, thus creating a study that focuses only on what it sets out to determine.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Other Personality Tests
Along with the question of lurking variables, many questions have arisen about the
validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Sharp’s (2008) study decided that a
possible reason they did not find the expected correlation was that “personality preferences, as
set out in the MBTI, give no indication of student maturity, motivation, or of situational factors”
(p. 20). Indeed, situational factors seem to be key when giving a personality test related to a
specific situation (i.e. performance in the language classroom). Hu and Reiterer (2009) go so far
as to say that “although the MBTI is a standard tool for assessing personality types… the
researchers of SLA… did not find it an appropriate indicator in language related issues” (p. 105).
One of the major problems with MBTI, according to Pittenger’s (2005) essay, is that it
views personality types as distinctive groups instead of a sliding scale. In past versions of the
MBTI, if someone scored in the middle range, they would receive an “X” for that particular
category because they were so close to the middle that it was not beneficial to define them as an
extrovert or an introvert. In the current version of the MBTI, even if someone is close to the
middle, they will still be defined as an extrovert or introvert. When receiving results from a
trained psychology professional, this slight variation would be explained to the test taker to alert
them that their preference is slight and they may decide to choose a preference to strengthen.
Unfortunately, many SLA researchers do not pay attention to this nuance within the MBTI and
press forward to draw a black and white line between introversion and extroversion for the

22. 21
purpose of their study. Thus, studies that have 10 introverts and 10 extroverts may actually have
5 introverts, 5 extroverts, and 10 people that are in the middle. The results of SLA studies may,
therefore, be skewed by including the middle section of people with one of the polarizing sides.
Because of this, “the MBTI four-letter type formula may imply statistically significant
personality differences where none exists” (Pittenger, 2005, p. 213).
The problem is with the way the questions are asked. Tests like the MBTI are considered
“forced choice scales” where the subject must choose a polar side, and these tests should be used
cautiously in professional studies because human personality is not as black and white as such
tests make it out to be (Pittenger, 2005). Ultimately, in the test and the way research has used the
test, personality has been viewed as an invariant set at birth, but retests using the MBTI do not
support this theory, as people often get different results when they take the test at different times.
Finally, many people who have taken the test believe it has mislabeled them based on their own
introspection (Pittenger, 2005). Clearly, this is not the reliable test that SLA researchers need to
use as a standard when it comes to personality studies.
Another popular personality test to administer in SLA studies is the Eysenck Personality
Inventory, but Hu and Reiterer (2009) say this test may have been so popular because it is easy
to administer and easy to score, not because it is a valid test for the language classroom.
Regardless of which test is used, the question of personality variability arises once again,
seeing that a singular self-reporting test may not be adequate to gain a true understanding of a
learner’s personality. Pomerance and Converse (2014) advocate for giving a personality test
context to improve the validity of the test. This would mean adding a context such as “in the
language classroom” to each question on a personality test (Pomerance & Converse, 2014).
Without this frame of reference, learners may access information that is inappropriate for the

23. 22
context that researchers are looking to test. If a person’s self-concept has a high level of
differentiation, meaning they can see themselves differently in different situations, it is important
to provide a frame of reference to help the learner focus in on the self-concept that the researcher
is hoping to test.
Simply adding a frame of reference may not completely clear up all issues with
personality tests, as the format itself may be somewhat invalid when assessing complex and
variable personalities. Answering questions about your own personality is often a difficult task,
seeing as subjects may misinterpret the question, or lie about answers (intentionally or
unintentionally). Finally, “limiting [a] study of personality to what is revealed in trait
questionnaires, which capture only average behavior, excludes consideration of the variability in
how people actually behave” (Noftle, 2015, p. 177). Questionnaires must take into account the
context they are most interested in to avoid gathering information only about the subject’s
average personality.
Research Questions
The previously conducted studies may raise more questions than they answer. Thus, this
study sets out to find the answers to these questions by using research-based methods to create a
new personality test to assess language learners. The following research will examine these
questions:
(i) Does examining the personality traits introversion and extroversion in a binary or
continual way provide more informative results?
(ii) Does intraindividual variation affect the validity of personality tests given in the
language classroom?

24. 23
III: METHODS
Participants
The participants were 69 ESL students in and ESOL program at a regional university in
the Midwest. All of the students were currently enrolled in Listening and Speaking and/or
Reading and Writing for Academic Purposes class. Participants were recruited during their class
time. The researcher attended English classes to ask for volunteers. All participants were also
currently enrolled in regular undergraduate classes for their intended degree program, thus they
were at an appropriately advanced level to understand material meant for native speakers. For
the second round of testing, only 51 participants returned, thus the number of data sets used in
this study is 51.
Materials
The first test given was the Open Extended Jungian Type Scales 1.2 by Eric Jorgenson.
Jorgenson presents this test as an equivalent to the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This
test is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareALike 4.0
International License. The researcher originally wanted to give the official MBTI but after
looking, realized that test administrators must be trained or psychological professionals. For a
further discussion on this issue, please see the Limitations heading in the Discussion chapter.
This test was amended to contain only questions regarding introversion and extroversion
to save time and cognition of the behalf of the participants. The original format of the test was
kept the same (i.e. instructions, choice scale). The test was pilot tested with four graduate
teaching assistants in university ESL programs and 6 ESL students of similar demographics to
the participants in this study. Each participant in the pilot test was asked if they thought they
were an introvert or an extrovert based on their own introspection. The two traits were defined

25. 24
for pilot test participants. Based on individuals’ perceptions, this test appears to have face
validity as results largely matched individual’s perceptions of themselves.
Based on ESL student’s pilot testing, wording of one question on this test needed to be
changed. Question number four originally read “Gets worn out by parties” or “Gets fired up by
parties.” Although the goal was to keep this test in its original format, 4 out of 6 ESL pilot
testers asked the meaning of these two phrases, and thus, the researcher found it necessary to
change the wording to avoid confusion in the study. It is important to note that previous research
may not have amended the personally tests in any way which could have created confusion for
students, and less reliability among past studies’ results. The edited form of the test is as
follows:
Figure 3.1
MBTI-Style Test

26. 25
The test created by the researcher was the second test given, which was named
Extroversion/Introversion in Language Learning Test (EILLT). The test is an edited version of
Figure 3.1. Because of the aforementioned research on the MBTI, this test was edited for several
qualities in order to make it more reliable and accurate (see list that follows).
First, the language in the test was simplified to make it more reliable. MBTI is said to be
at a seventh grade reading level, but to be certain, the researcher wanted to create a tool that had
no ambiguous wording or exceedingly difficult vocabulary. Examples of such changes include
changing “mellow” to “calm” and changing “worn out” to “tired.” (See a full list of changes
made in Appendix A). After these changes were made, the EILLT was run through LexTutor
VocabProfilers and it found that 97.38% of words in the test are covered by the first 2000 most
frequent vocabulary words. There are only 3 academic words in the questionnaire: energy,
individual, and topics. These are words that students in the English for Academic Purposes
program will be familiar with based on their experience in college-level classes.
Secondly, each question was edited to be given the context of the language classroom to
make the test more valid, as Pomerance and Converse (2014) had recommended. This was done
to give students the proper situational aspects of their personality to access while answering the
questions. If intraindividual variability plays a role in personality, this added context should
pinpoint some of the variation.
Thirdly, the researcher changed the choice scale to a Likert-type scale with a choice of 0-
5. This scale avoids middle ground to ensure more valuable results. In the official MBTI, these
choices are “strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree,” but it is the researcher’s
hope that taking out the additional vocabulary will clear up the scale choosing process for second
language learners. Finally, the scoring of this test will be done differently than the scoring of the

27. 26
MBTI which would count a slight inclination to one preference as a set personality trait. Slight
inclinations will be discounted in the EILLT. Each item from the original test has also been
edited into 3-4 slightly different questions. Students’ answers to similar questions will be
averaged to account for answering differences within questions. The instructions for this test
have also been crafted based on Quenk’s (2000) instructions for MBTI administration. As she
states, “providing the client with the appropriate test taking attitude is essential,” (Quenk, 2000,
p. 29). The instructions hope to set the participants at ease and to try to avoid many of the
common pitfalls in survey research.
The test was also pilot tested with six students of similar demographics to the study’s
participants and four TESL graduate students to gather feedback on the format, vocabulary, and
to make sure the test is valid. The test was edited further after the pilot test to amend common
confusion. The EILLT is included in Figure 3.2.

28. 27
Figure 3.2
Extroversion/Introversion in Language Learning Test (EILLT)
Answer these questions honestly based on your own preferences. Do not spend too much time on any one
question, instead go with your first feeling about the question. There are no right or wrong answers.
Your teacher will not know which answers you put. Circle one number for each question. 0 – Not at all
- 5 – Very.
1. I am bored by individual work in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
2. I have a lot of energy in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
3. I talk more than I listen in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
4. I get tired after a long discussion in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
5. After language class I like to spend time with friends or classmates.
0 1 2 3 4 5
6. I am calm in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
7. I get excited by a long discussion in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
8. My voice is quiet in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
9. I am excited by talking to others in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
10. I work best in groups in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
11. I would rather give a speech in front of the class than listen to my classmates’ speeches.
0 1 2 3 4 5
12. I find it easy to speak loudly in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
DO NOT FLIP BACK TO FRONT SIDE.

29. 28
13. I work best alone in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
14. I find it difficult to speak loudly in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
15. I listen more than I talk in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
16. I need quiet time alone after a language class with lots of talking.
0 1 2 3 4 5
17. I like to discuss with others in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
18. I don’t like speaking in front of the whole class in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
19. I like discussing topics with others in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
20. I like to spend time with my classmates from language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
21. I enjoy working by myself in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
22. I would rather listen to my classmates’ speeches instead of give one myself.
0 1 2 3 4 5
23. I would rather hear someone else’s opinion than share my own in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
24. After language class, I like to go home and be by myself.
0 1 2 3 4 5
25. I like giving a speech in front of my classmates in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5
26. I enjoy group work in language class.
0 1 2 3 4 5

30. 29
Procedure
First, each student was randomly given a set of two tests including the MBTI-Style test
(Figure 1) and the EILLT (Figure 2). If tests were administered during a class period, the
students took the personality tests before they did anything else in class. Participating in class
activities before taking the personality tests could prime the students to feel a particular way
when they take the personality test. These tests were coded with a number so as to ensure that
the students’ two tests were kept as a data set without identifying the student by name. This
allowed the students to answer freely and honestly. Students started by taking the MBTI-Style
test. Before taking the test, students were read the instructions by the researcher, and had the
rating scale explained to them. Students could then begin the test and did not have a time limit.
When they reached the end of the MBTI-Style test, they were told to stop and wait. Next, the
students flipped to the EILLT in their testing packet. They were read the instructions and had the
rating scale explained to them. Students were encouraged to ask questions if they did not
understand either test at any time. Students began the EILLT and when they completed it, this
phase of the testing is done.
One week later, students took both personality tests again following the same steps as
listed above. Re-testing was to account for any intraindividual variability within students’
personalities. It was expected that the MBTI-Style test would have a greater amount of
intraindividual variability, as this has been a critique with the test by past researchers. After
taking the second round of personality tests, students were given an oral language assessment.
The assessment was a three-minute long impromptu argumentative speech. This assessment was
recorded and scored using a speaking score card similar to the one used by Lestari, Sada, and
Suhartono (2015). The scoring included five categories: pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency,

31. 30
accuracy, and relevancy and adequacy of content. Each category had a maximum score of 6
points and a minimum score of 1 point for a perfect overall score of 30 points. The oral language
assessment was viewed and scored by the researcher.
Analysis
Once students had completed all three rounds of the testing, results were gathered from
each of the three tests. Each student’s data was coded using a number to ensure the data set
remained whole. The MBTI-Style tests and the EILLT were scored using a number scale where
each answer was awarded a number. The results of these tests were then converted into
percentages to be able to easily compare them. This was done because the MBTI test and the
EILLT had different maximum scores, so a percentage made the scores comparable. Each
question was scored using a scoring scale to measure extroversion; thus, higher scores were
labeled as more extroverted. A paired-sample t-test was run to compare the results from the first
and second round of the personality testing. This answered research question (ii) and determined
the amount of intraindividual variability within each test.
Correlations were taken to determine if there was any connection between the speaking
test scores and each test as well as determining the correlation between the MBTI and the
EILLT. This determined how closely the test were related to the language measure and if the
two tests were testing a similar construct.
Next, the personality test scores for the MBIT and EILLT were put in order from lowest
to highest and broken into three categories each, introverts, extroverts, and those in the middle.
These categories were then used in a one-way ANOVA to determine if there was any connection
between the group of extroverts or the group of introverts and the speaking test score.

32. 31
IV: RESULTS
When examining the results of the personality tests themselves, from week one to week
two, the results of each test did not significantly change (see section below on research question
(ii) for more details on this), so it was decided to look only at week two to answer research
question one (i). It is seen that MBTI and EILLT in week two positively correlated with each
other (n=51; Pearson Correlation=.490; p<.000).
To answer research question one (i), correlations were conducted first looking at a
continual scale of the traits introversion and extroversion. When treating these traits as having a
scalar nature, it was seen that the MBTI did not correlate with any language measure. The
EILLT correlated significantly with the total speaking test score (n=51; Pearson
Correlation=.298; p=.034). The EILLT also correlated significantly with the vocabulary
segment of the speaking test score (n=51; Pearson Correlation=.320; p=.022) and the accuracy
segment of the speaking test score (p=51; Pearson Correlation=.313; p=.025).

33. 32
Figure 4.1
Correlation between Total Speaking Test Score and Personality
When looking at introversion and extroversion as binary, we see that the average
speaking test scores of the two groups (extroverts and introverts) are not much different. The
average speaking test score for extroverts on the MBTI was 22.4 points while the average score
for introverts on the MBTI was 22 points. The average score for extroverts on the EILLT was
22.8 points while the average score for introverts on the EILLT was 21.9 points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Percentage
of
Extroversion
(Higher
scores
are
more
extroverted)
Speaking Test Score
(Out of 30)
MBTI P2 EILLT P2 Linear (MBTI P2) Linear (EILLT P2)

34. 33
Figure 4.2
Extroverts and Introverts Score on Speaking Test
Looking at personality as binary, the researcher also broke the MBTI and EILLT into
three groups. Only the second round of testing was examined for these tests. These groups were
determined by an examination of the descriptive data for the MBTI by looking at score
distributions and determining where an informative cutoff point would be. To do this, a
spreadsheet listing of scores was sorted from highest to lowest. Personality test scores above 65
were coded as extroverts (n=16), scores below 50 were coded as introverts (n=15), and scores in
the middle (n=20) were excluded. For the extrovert group, the mean score on the speaking test
was 23.19 with a standard deviation of 2.664. For the introvert group, the mean score on the
speaking test was 22.40 with a standard deviation of 3.269. The two groups (introverts and
21.2
21.4
21.6
21.8
22
22.2
22.4
22.6
22.8
23
MBTI 2 EILLT2
Average
Speaking
Test
Score
Extrovert Introvert

35. 34
extroverts) speaking test scores were not statistically significantly different with a mean
difference of .788 at a significance level of .485.
When completing this same analysis with the EILLT, three groups were once again
determined by an examination of the descriptive data for the second round of the EILLT.
Personality test scores above 60 were coded as extroverts (n=11), scores below 50 were coded as
introverts (n=22) and scores in the middle (n=18) were excluded. For the extrovert group, the
mean score on the EILLT was 24.45 with a standard deviation of 2.115. For the introvert group,
the mean score on the speaking test was 22.00 with a standard deviation of 2.944. The two
groups (introverts and extroverts) speaking test scores were statistically significant with a mean
difference of 2.455 at a significance level of .030.
To answer research question two (ii), paired sample t-tests were conducted to determine
if intraindividual variability effected the results of the MBTI or the EILLT tests when taken a
week later for a second time. A paired sample t-test (t=5.161; df=50; p<.000) comparing the
MBTI and EILLT the first time students took them showed a statistically significant difference
between the first MBTI (n=51; m=59.5; SD=11.71) and the first EILLT (n=51; m=52.6;
SD=11.85). A second paired sample t-test (t=3.007; df=50; p=.004) comparing the MBTI and
EILLT the second time students took them showed a statistically significant difference between
the second MBTI (n=51; m=57.8; SD=10.0) and the second EILLT (n=51; m=53.0; SD=12.3).

36. 35
Figure 4.3
MBTI Versus EILLT Personality Scores
When comparing the first and second rounds of the MBTI, a paired sample t-test
(t=1.762; df=50; p=.084) did not show a statistically significant difference between the first
MBTI (n=51; m=59.5; SD=11.7) and the second MBTI (n=51; m=57.8; SD=10.0). When
comparing the first and second rounds of EILLT, a paired sample t-test (t=-.455; df=50; p=.651)
did not show a statistically significant difference between the first EILLT (n=51; m=52.6;
SD=11.9) and the second EILLT (n=51; m=53.0; SD=12.3).
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
Week 1 Week 2
Average
%
Personality
Test
Score
MBTI EILLT

37. 36
Figure 4.4
Week 1 Versus Week 2 Personality Scores
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
MBTI EILLT
Average
%
Personality
Test
Score
Week 1 Week 2

38. 37
V: DISCUSSION
Research question one (i) asked if looking at the personality traits introversion and
extroversion as binary or continual provided more meaningful information. The results show a
much greater amount of detail when looking at the traits as a continuum. It shows that overall,
the EILLT has a correlation with the total speaking test score as well as the vocabulary and
accuracy sections of the speaking test, while the MBTI does not show any correlations with the
speaking test. These results are different than many of the previous research that was unable to
find any correlation for various reasons (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999; Chen, Jiang & Mu,2015;
Sharp, 2008; Van Daele, 2005). It is possible that giving the questions the context of the
language classroom and simplifying the language so that students could understand what they
were answering is what allowed this test to slightly predict language ability. Only about 8% of
the total speaking test score can be explained by the EILLT results, while about 10% of the
vocabulary and accuracy scores could be explained by the EILLT score. While these
percentages are small, they are still able to predict the language measure results to some degree,
which is valuable when it comes to testing personality in the language classroom.
According to this study, vocabulary and accuracy may be two elements of speaking
ability that are effected by a language learner’s personality. First, using and understanding new
vocabulary words takes practice and exposure (Nation, 2001). This is something that extroverts
may have an advantage over introverts due to the fact that they put themselves in situations
where they get more chances for input and output as they interact with others more often than
introverts. Secondly, accuracy was somewhat surprising to see correlated with the EILLT, due
to the fact that previous researchers such as Dewaele and Furnham (1999) have stated that
accuracy is something that introverts may excel at due to their careful attention and internal

39. 38
monitoring system. This was not the case in the current study. One possible explanation for this
would be that extroverts have chosen to interact with more native speakers and have heard more
correct grammar and been corrected more than introverts who have studied from a book.
When looking at introversion and extroversion as binary traits as the MBTI does, the
results become much more stifled. There is not a large difference between the average speaking
test score for extroverts and introverts on MBTI (.4 points) or between the average speaking test
score for extroverts and introverts on EILLT (1.1 points). This shows that when looking at the
traits with a black and white distinction, the EILLT’s predictive nature for speaking test scores
does not show. Instead, both groups seem to be very similar when it comes to the language
measure, which may have been the basis of past studies’ (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999; Chen,
Jiang & Mu,2015; Sharp, 2008; Van Daele, 2005) results saying that there is no difference
between introversion and extroversion’s effect on language ability.
On the other hand, when looking at the two categories that had been created for each test,
the MBTI introverts and extroverts average speaking test scores are not statistically significant,
while the EILLT introverts’ and extroverts’ average speaking test scores are statistically
significant at the .05 level. This shows that even when looking at personality as binary, the
EILLT is more closely related to language than the MBTI.
While the EILLT is more closely aligned with language, it is also more sensitive in its
measurement of personality. This can be seen by comparing the range of scores for each test.
The highest value for the second round of the MBTI was 77.5% and the lowest was 30%, making
the range 47.5%. The highest value for the second round of the EILLT was 86.9% and the
lowest was 26.9%, making the range 60%. Being more sensitive means that this tool gives more
insight into the personality of individuals.

40. 39
Research question two (ii) asked if intraindividual variation affects the validity of
personality tests given in the language classroom. To determine if this is the case, it is necessary
to compare the results of the two different personality tests. Interestingly, the mean score on the
MBTI was higher each time than the mean score on the EILLT. The difference between the first
round of the two tests was 6.9 percent while the difference between the second round of the two
tests was 4.8 percent. This shows that participants taking the two tests did get significantly
different results when they took a test that asked them about their personality in the language
classroom specifically rather than their general personality. This confirms the idea that
intraindividual variability does exist as people may act differently in different situations as
Noftle and Fleeson (2015) suggest.
The lower score on the EILLT means that participants were ranked as more introverted
on this test than they were on the MBTI. This is possibly due to the fact that speaking in a
second language can be intimidating for many people, and many may feel less comfortable in
their second language than their first. Thus, it could be said that when participants were taking
the MBTI, they may have been thinking of their personality in their first language, doing
everyday tasks, or an aggregate personality and not their personality as it is in the language
classroom. This goes back to Noftle’s (2015) perspective on the limitation of questionnaires in
that they only assess an average of people’s personality (p. 177). Perhaps adding the context of
the language classroom in some ways addresses these limitations.
In addition to personality varying by situation, proponents of intraindividual variability
believe that personality may change over extended and shorter periods of time. Thus, each
personality test was given to participants a second time a week later. This would determine if
personality varies day to day. It turned out that neither tests’ results were significantly different

41. 40
from week one to week two. This is interesting evidence against intraindividual variability
based on short periods of time. Many critics of MBTI have stated that test takers get different
results when they take the test at different points (Pittenger, 2005) but this was largely not the
case during the one-week interval in this study. The EILLT did have a closer correlation
between the two tests than the MBTI by a p value of .567. This means that although the two
tests are both similar from week one to week two, perhaps specifying the language classroom
context on the EILLT removed some variation from participants’ answers. In addition, this
similarity from week one to week two leads us to believe that both of these tests are reliable
because they don’t change from week to week.
The EILLT is validated by the fact that the MBTI and the EILLT correlate with each
other, thus we can say that the EILLT is testing the same things as the MBTI. In this case, it
might seem unnecessary to have created a new test, but the EILLT correlates with the language
measures in interesting and different ways which leads to an intriguing possibility of using this
test in the language classroom. Only the EILLT shared statistically significant correlations with
the language measures. This was evident by the EILLT’s relationship with the total speaking test
score as well as individual breakout scores for the vocabulary and accuracy sections of the
speaking test.
Pedagogical Implications
Learning about students’ personalities is something teachers have done both formally and
informally for many years. Understanding a student’s preferred behavior may lead to beneficial
lesson planning and diversifying of teaching techniques for ESL educators.
Firstly, it is important for educators to realize that one personality is not superior to
another. Both introverts and extroverts have their own talents and educators should not favor

42. 41
one type of personality over another. This means that creating different assignments for students
throughout the semester in which each student can show their strengths in different ways may be
a valuable pursuit.
Teachers may decide to use the EILLT to learn more about students’ personality in the
language classroom in the beginning of the semester. A teacher who does this may be able to
better serve his or her students by understanding they types of activities they may excel at and
providing ample opportunities for students to partake in these activities. For example, giving
extroverts time for discussion and giving introverts time for thinking and writing tasks will
highlight students’ strengths. Giving students options for the types of activities they can do will
also provide students with a low-stress learning environment that meshes with their personality.
Similarly, teachers who have administered the EILLT will have knowledge of what language
skills students may struggle with based on their personalities and will be able to provide
additional scaffolding to students based on this knowledge.
Finally, teachers may use the EILLT results to decide on how to group students for
particular activities. For example, putting extroverts together with introverts for a group task
may be beneficial for certain types of activities, while for others, homogeneous groups would be
better. Having knowledge of students’ personalities will allow educators to make these decisions
and to eliminate various problems that might arise out of clashes of personality.
Future Research
The completion of this study created further questions that should be addressed through
additional research. First, validating and fine-tuning the EILLT through large-scale testing is
essential. One way to do this would be to compare the test’s results to teacher’s perceptions of
students’ personalities and be sure the two match. Similarly, it may be interesting to improve the

43. 42
EILLT’s scoring though use of item response theory (IRT). This method weights different
questions and provides different scoring for each question instead of summing up the total as was
done in this study. IRT was beyond the scope of this study, but it may be a valuable next step in
further developing the EILLT because, “when comparing IRT to the more traditional CTT-based
summated scoring, IRT should theoretically produce more accurate trait estimations,” (Speer,
2016, p. 42). Completing some validation and perhaps creating IRT-based scoring would be
positive improvements on the EILLT that should be made before using this test in classrooms or
for future research on a large scale.
Next, it would be interesting to do a longitudinal study to determine how much
personality changes over a longer period of time. Taking a look at the results of both the MBIT
and the EILLT over the course of months or years may provide valuable insight into the nature
of intraindividual variability that was not able to be given in this particular study. This would
also determine if a student should take the EILLT each semester or if taking it once at the
beginning of their college career would be sufficient. If participants in a future study were found
to have similar results after a year’s time, it could save teachers time to only have to test students
once.
Future research may also be done to look at different demographic variables as they relate
to the EILLT results such as gender and culture. Wakamoto (2009) said that women might be
more introverted due simply to their role in society. It would be interesting to see if this is true
in the results from the EILLT testing. Similarly, some researchers (Chen et al., 2015, Hu &
Reiterer, 2009) believe that different cultures may be more extroverted than others. Separating
the results of the EILLT out by culture, it would be interesting to see if there are any trends in
how different cultures scored. Looking at these variables and determining how they play out in

44. 43
the EILLT scoring would provide more insight into the effectiveness of this test in relation to
different groups of students.
Limitations
Throughout the research process for this study, several factors have been identified as
possible limitations that may have effected this study in some way. The first of these limitations
was the fact that the researcher was not able to use the professional version of the MBTI. The
administration of this test must be done by a trained psychological professional. There is also a
cost associated with each individual test. Thus, it was inaccessible for this study. It is unclear if
past researchers may have had the same problems and then used a derivation of the MBTI,
similar to what was done in this study. It cannot be taken for granted that the creative commons
licensed MBTI that was chosen to be used for this test is as accurate as the official MBTI or that
scoring for both tests would have been similar.
The seriousness of participants was another possible limitation of this study. Many
participants were offered extra credit by their English for Academic Purposes instructors for
participating. Therefore, there was a good incentive to show up on the days of the study, but
there was not anything at stake for participants’ performance on the test. Therefore, it is unclear
how seriously participants took the study. In the same vein, the directions for the speaking test
during the language assessment section of the study required students to present a three-minute
speech, but many students did not take a full three minutes to give their speech. Many spoke for
one to two minutes, while some spoke for as little as 30 seconds. When this was the case,
participants were scored lower in the “content” category of the speech rubric. It is unclear if this
is an actual issue with the participant’s speech content, or if it is more related to the speaking test

45. 44
prompt or the participant’s motivation to complete the study. Perhaps different parameters
should have been implemented for the speaking test.
Similarly, some participants did not return for the second day of the study. 69
participants initially consented to participate in this study, but 18 did not return on the second
day of the study. Thus, there was a large amount of hanging data that could not be used. Having
complete data would have allowed for more accurate results, but it seems that this is something
unavoidable in human subjects testing.
Because the time interval between the two tests was only one week, there might be much
more to discuss if there was a longer interval between the two tests, such as a year. It is often the
case that individuals take the MBTI at multiple points in their lives and get different scores
(Noftle & Fleeson, 2015), but this type of change may not happen over periods of days or weeks.
Thus, it is hard to determine from this study the extent to which time is a factor in intraindividual
variation.
Language learners bring many different things to the language classroom. Using more
finely-tuned research methods when looking at personality’s relation to language acquisition
may be a valuable step in answering research questions on personality’s effect on language
learning. Tests such as the EILLT may someday provide insight into language learners’
personalities in order to better serve them in the classroom.

46. 45
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Personality. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/.
Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., & Zengzhen, M. (2015). A survey study: The correlation between
introversion/extroversion and oral English learning outcome. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 6, 581-587. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0603.14
Deckersbach, T., Miller, K.K., Klibanski, A., Fischman, A., Dougherty, D.D., Blais, M.A.,
Herzong, D.B., & Rauch, S.L. (2006). Regional cerebral brain metabolism correlates of
neuroticism and extraversion. Depression and Anxiety, 23, 133-138.
Dewaele, J.M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in
instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal,
89, 367-380. doi: 0026-7902/05/367–380
Dewaele, J.M. & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied
linguistic research. Language Learning, 49(3), 509-544. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00098
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R.
(2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big
five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820–828.
doi:http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610370159
Dornyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents in language learning:
Frameworks for focused interventions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In M. Celce-
Murcia, D.M. Brinton, & M.A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (pp. 31-45). Boston: National Geographic Learning.

47. 46
Eysenck, H.J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Gass, S.M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hu, X. & Reiterer, S.M. (2009). Personality and pronunciation talent. In G. Dogil &
S.M Reiterer (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity (pp. 97-129). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Lestari, A., Sada, C., & Suhartono, L. (2015). Analysis on the relationship of extrovert
– introvert personality and students’ speaking performance. Jurnal Pendidikan dan
Pembelajaran, 4, 1-14. Retrieved from:
http://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jpdpb/article/view/9232/9146
Lieberman, M.D. & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t always tell who likes
them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(2), 294-310. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.294
Moyer, A. (2014). Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of
learner engagement and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics, 35, 418-440.
doi:10.1093/applin/amu012
Myers, I.B. & Myers, P.B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: University Press.
Noftle, E.E., & Fleeson, W. (2015). Intraindividual variability in adult personality
development. In Diehl, M., Hooker, K., & Sliwinski, M.J. (Eds), Handbook of
intraindividual variability across the life-span (pp. 176-197). New York: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group.

48. 47
Pittenger, D.J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210-221.
doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
Pomerance, M.H. & Converse, P.D. (2013). Investigating context specificity, self-
schema characteristics, and personality test validity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 58, 54-59. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.005
Quenk, N. (2000). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment. New York: Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Sharp, A. (2008). Personality and second language learning. Asian Social Science, 4,
17-25. Retrieved from: www.ccsenet.org/journal/html
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275-298.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979
Speer, A. B., Robie, C., & Christiansen, N.D. (2016). Effects of item type and estimation method
on the accuracy of estimated personality trait scores: Polytomous item response theory
models versus summated scoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 41-45.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.058
Suliman, F.H.A. (2014). The role of extrovert and introvert personality in second
language acquisition. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20, 109-114.
doi:10.9790/0837-2025109114
Tarone, E., & Swierzbin, B. (2015). Exploring learner language. New York: Oxford.

49. 48
Van Daele, S. (2005). The effect of extroversion on L2 oral proficiency. CÍRCULO de
Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (clac), 24, 91-114 Retrieved from:
http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/
Wakamoto, N. (2009). Extroversion/introversion in foreign language learning:
Interactions with learner strategy use. Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and
Communication Monograph, 67, 13-126.
Zafar, S., & Meenakshi, K. (2012). Individual learner differences and second language
acquisition: A review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 639-646.
doi:10.4304/jltr.3.4.639-646

50. 49
Appendix A: Changes made from MBTI Test to EILLT to decrease ambiguity for second
language learners.
Original
Question
Number
Original Wording
(MBTI)
EILLT
Question
Number
Edited Wording
(EILLT)
Reason
2 “energetic” 2 “have a lot of energy” Simplified
vocabulary
4 “worn out” 4 “tired” Removed multi-
word unit
6 “go out on the town” 5, 20 “spend time with
friends or classmates”
Removed
colloquial
vocabulary
2 “mellow” 6 “calm” Simplified
vocabulary
4 “fired up” 7, 9 “excited” Simplified
vocabulary
4 “parties” 7, 9 “long discussions,”
“talking to others”
Appropriate for
language
learning context
7 “finds it difficult to
yell very loudly”
8, 14 “my voice is quiet,”
“difficult to speak
loudly”
Appropriate for
language
learning context
8 “perform in front of
other people”
11, 25 “give a speech in front
of the class”
Appropriate for
language
learning context
7 “yelling to others
when they are far
away comes
naturally”
12 “easy to speak loudly” Appropriate for
language
learning context
6 “stays at home” 16 “need quiet time alone” Appropriate for
language
learning context
8 “avoids public
speaking”
18, 22 “don’t like speaking in
front of the whole
class,”
“would rather listen to
my classmates’
speeches than give my
own”
Simplified
vocabulary,
appropriate for
language
learning context

51. 50
Appendix B: Informed Consent Document
Assessing Introversion and Extroversion in L2 Settings
Informed Consent
You are invited to participate in a research study of assessing personality in the language
classroom. You were selected as a possible participant because of your enrollment in the EAP
program in listening and speaking class at St. Cloud State University. This research project is
being conducted by Caitlin Skellett, to satisfy the requirements of a Master’s Degree in Teaching
English as a Second Language at St. Cloud State University.
Background Information and Purpose
The purpose of this study is in general terms, to create a more useful personality test to determine
student’s personality in a language learning setting.
Procedures
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to take two different personality tests two different
times. These personality tests will take approximately 15 minutes each. You will take the two
different tests on the same day, and then take the two different tests a second time one week
later. This study will also use your research presentation speech to assess your speaking ability,
but this will not change the requirements of this assignment.
Risks
As this is a study that tests your personality, it may be uncomfortable to examine your own
personality, or you may find your personality trait is assessed differently than what you might
have hoped. The questions used on the personality tests are all appropriate for the language
classroom, so these questions should not make you feel any more uncomfortable than you do in a
normal EAP class session. You may also withdraw from the study at any time if you are
uncomfortable.
Benefits
You will be able to better understand your personality as it relates to language learning. This can
help you in the future to determine the best and most useful way for you to study based on your
personality and preferences.
Confidentiality
At no time will I, or anyone else, know your answers to the personality test. Each test you take
will have a number on it that will be randomly assigned to you. Only you will know your
number. Once I collect your test, I will have no knowledge of who answered each test.
Therefore, the results that I write about will only be published with the “student number” (e.g. 1-
16). Your name will never be included with your data.

52. 51
Research Results
If you are interested in learning about your own personality score, please remember your
assigned number and ask me after the study is complete (next semester) for your results. I will
also be happy to provide the results of my overall research when the study is completed to
anyone who is interested. The study will also be published on the St. Cloud State website on the
thesis repository page once it has been completed.
Additional Resources
If you would like to know more about introversion and extroversion personality traits and how
they may relate to your studies, you may be interested in the following:
• Dewaele, J.M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in
instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal,
89, 367-380. doi: 0026-7902/05/367–380
• Hu, X. & Reiterer, S.M. (2009). Personality and pronunciation talent. In G. Dogil & S.M
Reiterer (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity (pp. 97-129). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
• Myers, I.B. & Myers, P.B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
• Sharp, A. (2008). Personality and second language learning. Asian Social Science, 4, 17-
25. Retrieved from: www.ccsenet.org/journal/html
• Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275-298.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979
If you need assistance, or would like to talk to someone about personality traits, the following
services are available:
• Counseling and Psychological Services at St. Cloud State University
Stewart Hall 103
320.308.3171
Contact Information
If you have questions right now, please ask. If you have additional questions later, you may
contact me at 585-705-1614 or ceskellett@stcloudstate.edu or contact my adviser, Dr. Choon
Kim at ckim@stcloudstate.edu. You will be given a copy of this form for your records.
Voluntary Participation/Withdrawal
Participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current
or future relations with St. Cloud State University, the researcher, or your grade in this class or
any other EAP classes. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without
penalty.

53. 52
Acceptance to Participate
Your signature indicates that you are at least 18 years of age, you have read the information
provided above, and you have consent to participate. You may withdraw from the study at any
time without penalty after signing this form.
Signature: _________________________ Date: _____________